Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "r22404".
2009 Oct 29
2
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...by
>>> default, and explicitly enabling dangerous (but in some cases fast)
>>> behavior.
>>
>> The behavior is only dangerous because people are using it in new
>> and different ways.
>
> I'd point out that reid thought he made the JIT thread-safe in r22404
> back in 2005. Calling it from multiple threads isn't new and
> different, it's just subtly broken. I suggested changing the default
> because most people who run into this problem don't think they're
> doing anything unusual, and in fact their code works fine with the...
2009 Oct 28
0
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...ays prefer correct but slow behavior by
>> default, and explicitly enabling dangerous (but in some cases fast)
>> behavior.
>
> The behavior is only dangerous because people are using it in new and different ways.
I'd point out that reid thought he made the JIT thread-safe in r22404
back in 2005. Calling it from multiple threads isn't new and
different, it's just subtly broken. I suggested changing the default
because most people who run into this problem don't think they're
doing anything unusual, and in fact their code works fine with the
eager JIT. People sh...
2009 Oct 29
3
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...g dangerous (but in some cases fast)
>>>>> behavior.
>>>>
>>>> The behavior is only dangerous because people are using it in new and
>>>> different ways.
>>>
>>> I'd point out that reid thought he made the JIT thread-safe in r22404
>>> back in 2005. Calling it from multiple threads isn't new and
>>> different, it's just subtly broken. I suggested changing the default
>>> because most people who run into this problem don't think they're
>>> doing anything unusual, and in fact...
2009 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...lt, and explicitly enabling dangerous (but in some cases fast)
>>>> behavior.
>>>
>>> The behavior is only dangerous because people are using it in new and
>>> different ways.
>>
>> I'd point out that reid thought he made the JIT thread-safe in r22404
>> back in 2005. Calling it from multiple threads isn't new and
>> different, it's just subtly broken. I suggested changing the default
>> because most people who run into this problem don't think they're
>> doing anything unusual, and in fact their code work...
2009 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...me cases fast)
>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> The behavior is only dangerous because people are using it in new and
>>>>> different ways.
>>>>
>>>> I'd point out that reid thought he made the JIT thread-safe in r22404
>>>> back in 2005. Calling it from multiple threads isn't new and
>>>> different, it's just subtly broken. I suggested changing the default
>>>> because most people who run into this problem don't think they're
>>>> doing anything unus...
2009 Nov 01
1
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...gt;>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The behavior is only dangerous because people are using it in new and
>>>>>> different ways.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd point out that reid thought he made the JIT thread-safe in r22404
>>>>> back in 2005. Calling it from multiple threads isn't new and
>>>>> different, it's just subtly broken. I suggested changing the default
>>>>> because most people who run into this problem don't think they're
>>>>> doi...
2009 Oct 29
3
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...t;>>>>>
>>>>>> The behavior is only dangerous because people are using it in new and
>>>>>> different ways.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'd point out that reid thought he made the JIT thread-safe in r22404
>>>>> back in 2005. Calling it from multiple threads isn't new and
>>>>> different, it's just subtly broken. I suggested changing the default
>>>>> because most people who run into this problem don't think they're
>>>>> doi...
2009 Oct 28
5
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
On Oct 28, 2009, at 10:07 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> From where I sit, this boils down to a very simple question (modulo
> Chris's point): Either choice will surprise some users. Which surprise
> is worse? Personally, I'd always prefer correct but slow behavior by
> default, and explicitly enabling dangerous (but in some cases fast)
> behavior.
The behavior is only
2009 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] Should LLVM JIT default to lazy or non-lazy?
...;>>
>>>>>>> The behavior is only dangerous because people are using it in new and
>>>>>>> different ways.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd point out that reid thought he made the JIT thread-safe in r22404
>>>>>> back in 2005. Calling it from multiple threads isn't new and
>>>>>> different, it's just subtly broken. I suggested changing the default
>>>>>> because most people who run into this problem don't think they're
>>>...